My conjecture is that the article undersells the possibility that rich people derive non-income utility from their jobs. For example, it seems plausible that jobless young men like video games because they revolve around competently meeting and overcoming (artificial) challenges. As far as I know, most people in high-paying jobs at least feel like their work consists of competently meeting and overcoming challenges.
I second this. Although I'm the opposite of rich I spent around two years trying to get my startup (turned out to be more like a small business) off the ground. Although stressful and tiring it was ultimately more exciting then most of the things I've done before with all the firefighting and Jacky things we did to try and stay afloat. I've since found most other things boring in comparison.
"caused x problem to be solved" is not the same as "solved x problem". the problem management solves is that of identifying needs and diverting resources. it would be unfair to the engineers to say that Elon built a spaceship; we do it anyway, but that doesn't make it accurate or correct.
In the optics of the management there was a problem and was fixed, it could even be a problem that requires several human resources, and/or external contractors, and/or using a product/service, etc.
Why can't they claim they've solved the problem? Like, the CTO asking a Product Manager "did you solve the problem", the PM should say: "I didn't, it was the UI X, the Dev Y, and the intern Z"?
By your logic no one can claim to have solved problem if several actors were involved, yet the problem is solved.
I don't think it would be unfair to say Elon built a space ship, because in a way he did, and unless someone is completely unaware of the endeavor of building something complex like a space ship, it's known that's a company composed of several people with different backgrounds that worked towards the building of a spaceship.
If you wanted to be accurate/correct then every time credit was due we should roll movie-like-credits.
that last statement, I agree with completely. I think it's one of our largest cultural blind spots - we like simple answers so we give credit to the people at the top of the decision making chain. It's why executive salaries and bonuses are so out of control high, and so many low skill or even high skill / not management positions are underpaid. We should be granting credit the way that movies do. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost etc.
> accumulating the fruits of workers' labor as a pastime
That sounds a lot look any normal employment contract to me. Any American bank, engineering company, factory, restaurant, etc has this employment arrangement and they are all consensual. So no, I do not.
everyone's retort to marxism is this same thing. i'm not going to debate you but i'll just point out that, again, consensual here is a gross oversimplification.
And this gets to what I'm saying in the top post. I get what you are saying with the consent argument. You are playing a word game via a redefinition of consent where even though they signed a piece of paper agreeing to do the thing while not under acute duress it wasn't "really consent" because the life is unfair and the system forced their hand.
And what I'm saying is, not only do I not accept the validity of that word game, but that a VAST majority of society does not accept that word game. Under your definition of consent almost nobody ever has consent for anything. This is not how people generally use the word consent.
it's not a word game - there' a reason why things like inebriation factor into whether consent (during sex) was really given. just saying the word doesn't magically make it compulsion free consent.
>even though they signed a piece of paper agreeing to do the thing while not under acute duress
there are many many other things other than duress that make a contract unenforceable
all you have to do to know this is witness literally any will go to probate.
>not only do I not accept the validity of that word game, but that a VAST majority of society does not accept that word game
you're wrong. you're just wrong. it's why lawyers exist. i'm sorry that you don't understand this but i can't teach it to you. i suggest you sit in on a 1L contracts class at your local law school.
Suppose a businesswoman built a completely automated company/factory that manufactures shoes. She runs the whole thing herself.
Would you consider that the businesswoman is exploiting society? And what if she decides that she wants to employ people again instead of using robots?
>Would you consider that the businesswoman is exploiting society?
From a Marxist perspective, no, or at least not directly. Others in the supply chain do, however - from the people who are employed to raise the cows, to the leathermakers, to the rubbermarkers, to the employees of other companies that built the machines. However, according to the traditional Marxist conception (which isn't a universal conception among Marxists nowadays), such a company would only be as profitable in the long run proportional to the amount of labour the businesswoman adds herself. This is why there hasn't been a completely automated shoe factory run by a single person that's profitable in the long run once forces of competition kick in.
The story is muddled a little if she acquires patents and copyrights, but it's not too far from reality, given that some countries have more lax attitudes towards IP and 'stealing designs'.
There are plenty of successful companies run by a single person, especially in tech. I had one myself for quite awhile that sold elementary school gradebook software.
Simple online SaaS that required very little manual effort but provided a lot of value and saved lots of manual effort for those who used it.
So much condescending presumption in this article.
Calling "wealth accumulation" (Frank's term) "the closest thing they have to fun" betrays his own bias.
It's quite possible that the work is just inherently fun. My work is, to me; sometimes I do it for free.
This reminds me of an article from the NYT probably 25 years ago when the author was astonished to see Mercedes' in the parking lot of Costco. "If you can afford a Mercedes why would you go to Costco?" Perhaps you prefer to shop there and don't give a shit about the old fashioned sumptuary habits.
That’s just a misunderstanding of Costco. Costco is an expensive store with high quality products for high income shoppers... don’t be fooled by the name.
In any case the attitude of the NYT was that people with any money would want to lord it over others. Back before the dot com boom that attitude had not migrated out here.
I upvoted you because what you're saying is true now, but it wasn't back then.
Both Costco and Sam's Club 25 years ago were truly "warehouse" stores. They had no heat. No air conditioning. They weren't brightly lit as they are today. Nowadays, they both have decent-to-above-average well-lit interiors that are designed to be essentially middle-class (in the case of Sam's) to upper middle-class (in the case of Costco) stores that are just "really big".
They were little more than distribution centers with printed price tags on items back in the mid-90s. A lot has changed, about both chains, since then.
Do these writers realize that multi-millionaires actually often eat at fast food restaurants? I could literally buy a hundred S class Mercedes cars and yet I went to Target a couple days ago to buy a dish scrubber and got a cheeseburger at a chain yesterday.
The book the millionaire next door goes into great depth and detail about what the majority of millionaires spend money on. A lot of the people driving mercs are not rich. Most have bought their cars using lease schemes which is a really expensive way to own a car you can't afford
Those people are all millionaires, they all live in either Los Angeles or New York. They can have women delivered discretely to them.
Every person you listed there was an abuser who wanted power over women which were either beholden to them, or women which they held position above. It wasn't about having a sexual encounter for the mere sake of a sexual encounter.
Another is to mention that Bill Gates and the former Intel CEO met their wives at work. And millions of other couples.
Also I would be remiss in not mentioning that #metoo stalled after Matt Lauer's accusations, because he was thought to be a leftist. So what was #metoo really about, if political party mattered? hmmm ... that's the problem with cultural Marxism (aka the Red Terror), eventually you become the target.
Robert Frank is a moderately socialist economics professor at Cornell, so take his quotes with a grain of salt.
The article talks about young men playing video games excessively. A contributing factor is that online dating women are looking for the top 5%-20% or so of men now (combination of appearance and hypergamy), so the bottom 80% to 95% are not dateable online.
(A recent survey said women are only interested in the top 4.9% of men in dating apps, versus the previous estimates of 10%-20%. This is called unrestricted hypergamy and has horrible consequences for both women and society at large, as those 4.9% of men essentially have harems of short-term relationships because they can, and the other men can just play video games.)
I've never heard somebody say, "I want to accumulate the fruits of workers' labor", so I think the understanding of motivation is backwards - it's to create a company or solve a problem, and if workers are needed, you hire them. This is HN, so for most readers should be obvious.
The deeper psychology is that most men need a purpose in life, and a startup is very purposeful. Whether it succeeds or fails is kept by financial score, but it still serves the purpose of getting up daily, focusing on tasks, and trying to "make a dent in the universe." (Richard Cooper)
> horrible consequences for both women and society at large, as those 4.9% of men essentially have harems of short-term relationships because they can, and the other men can just play video games
People who have many short term causual relationship have those because they want short term causual relationships - both men and women. They are not the same people as those who seek long term relationships. They have neither values nor interpersonal skills and habits for them.
The woman who supposedly enters the dating you talk about would had exactly same sex life and exactly same low quality relationship if she went for a gamer. Except maybe less fun as you don't get to have fun with someone who plays LoL.
> exactly same low quality relationship if she went for a gamer
I dunno, it's probably pretty different being in a relationship with somebody who would have an easy time finding somebody to cheat with vs. somebody who would have a hard time finding somebody to cheat with. Yeah, there are drawbacks to both, but they're not the same drawbacks.
I would not say so. Whether the guy cheats depends on whether he is willing to cheat.
After all, anyone can pay for prostitute if he really wants to. Plus, if he can't find anyone to cheat with, you probably don't want him for exactly same reasons.
I’m not a billionaire. I do have financial freedom, and I work 60 hour weeks. This fits my lifestyle because I find joy, fulfillment, and a strong sense of accomplishment in my work. If my work was more mundane, I imagine even 40 hours would be a huge struggle.
Without meaningful work, I imagine the rational thing to do (not necessarily ethical) is to find a job that requires the least amount of effort with the highest pay. And if the government will pay me the same to sit at home, perhaps I’d even do that.
I don’t think they really do. They just project an image. I think Elon Musk spends most of his time watching anime, shitposting on Twitter and laughing at how stupid his employees are for overworking themselves.
I used to work a whole lot as CEO/CTO earlier in life when I had children at home but I spent all non-office hours at home. Working. I later asked my children and my wife about it and they didn't have any thing negative to say about it at all.
As other comments have noted, one answer is that work is fun for many people. Another is that work gives purpose and structure to life, just like having children does. Another answer is that most rich people are self made and have had to work hard to get where they are. That means more hours at work and more sacrifice of other life experiences. Delayed gratification is a key part of the path to success but it then also becomes its own blessing or curse. On the positive side, it can be like being in love in a happy marriage - you develop deeper and deeper appreciation for your partner, discover greater richness and depth in them, and yes it comes at the exclusion of other things but that’s fine. A more cynical answer is the relentless grit that gets a rich person to that point of wealth is hard to turn off, and having not developed other comparably significant interests in their adult life, it consumes them and becomes the default way to keep occupied.
Rich people dont work so much... They just make so much money sitting around with other rich people they might as well call it work...
If you work in wall-mart your lunch is not paid. If you are the CEO of wall-mart you can expense a 2000 USD lunch and call it a buissness meeting.
If your job is number collection (realestate, banking, etc ) it is an addiction just like hoarding, the more you do it the more bigger number you want.
We should start shaming people for hoarding money just like we shame the poor for collecting toilet paper.
Working 12 hours as a CEO is not comparable to 12 hours shift in the factory.
And do you have any idea how complicated being a product manager is? You have to deeply understand your entire team's footprint, blockers, other teams, industry trends.. It's hard work. Plus you manage timelines and have to de-risk every single day.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
A factory worker takes a day or week to train.
A product manager takes years to change.
A CEO is learning every single day, doing the PM job for the company + hiring + managing relationships + so much more. If they don't, their company is dead. They're steering a giant ship by wire.
Well if you take a look at the project managers in for example... Accenture.. Most of them have none of the skill you mentioned. They just have been at the right place at the right time... They know what ass to kiss and go along their days happily double clicking on the internet and overselling government it projects....
Alot of the same can be said about many startup ceos.
Just take a look at all the crypto startups that made millions in 2017-2018
I've known very hard working people making very little. Life is a bit more complex than that.
There are multiple factors that contribute to success, but it's unlikely that maximizing just one of them in the absence of the others will lead to great results. Most successful people have gotten there through some combination of hard work, being born smart, having the means and opportunity to get an education, building a good network, etc.
For glory. I want to do the best I can do. I also want to be loved and respected with a lasting legacy. I lived in a hotel travelling the world for 5 years and it's just not as fulfilling as building things.
Becoming rich doesn't change the way you are wired
This is like asking why Tom Brady keeps training.
Money are not meant to be spent, just like Lombardi Trophies are not meant to be looked at or held more than the 24hrs after winning it. Money , just like Lombardi Trophies or WSOP bracelets are a way to keep the score
These people, they pathologically refuse to eat the marshmallow, they live their whole life eating 1/1000000th of the marshmallow and postponing the optionality to eat the rest in the future.
60 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadYou literally have Human Resources in pretty much all medium/large organizations, that manage literally human resources.
Since when human resource is not a very ethical approach? What's the new ethical approach to address human resources?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysic_o...
In the optics of the management there was a problem and was fixed, it could even be a problem that requires several human resources, and/or external contractors, and/or using a product/service, etc.
Why can't they claim they've solved the problem? Like, the CTO asking a Product Manager "did you solve the problem", the PM should say: "I didn't, it was the UI X, the Dev Y, and the intern Z"?
By your logic no one can claim to have solved problem if several actors were involved, yet the problem is solved.
I don't think it would be unfair to say Elon built a space ship, because in a way he did, and unless someone is completely unaware of the endeavor of building something complex like a space ship, it's known that's a company composed of several people with different backgrounds that worked towards the building of a spaceship.
If you wanted to be accurate/correct then every time credit was due we should roll movie-like-credits.
As the economist Robert Frank wrote, “building wealth to them is a creative process, and the closest thing they have to fun.”
"""
So the wealthy are accumulating the fruits of workers' labor as a pastime?
Yes, a VAST majority of people are not offended by the concept of paid work.
That sounds a lot look any normal employment contract to me. Any American bank, engineering company, factory, restaurant, etc has this employment arrangement and they are all consensual. So no, I do not.
everyone's retort to marxism is this same thing. i'm not going to debate you but i'll just point out that, again, consensual here is a gross oversimplification.
And what I'm saying is, not only do I not accept the validity of that word game, but that a VAST majority of society does not accept that word game. Under your definition of consent almost nobody ever has consent for anything. This is not how people generally use the word consent.
>even though they signed a piece of paper agreeing to do the thing while not under acute duress
there are many many other things other than duress that make a contract unenforceable
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra...
all you have to do to know this is witness literally any will go to probate.
>not only do I not accept the validity of that word game, but that a VAST majority of society does not accept that word game
you're wrong. you're just wrong. it's why lawyers exist. i'm sorry that you don't understand this but i can't teach it to you. i suggest you sit in on a 1L contracts class at your local law school.
Would you consider that the businesswoman is exploiting society? And what if she decides that she wants to employ people again instead of using robots?
From a Marxist perspective, no, or at least not directly. Others in the supply chain do, however - from the people who are employed to raise the cows, to the leathermakers, to the rubbermarkers, to the employees of other companies that built the machines. However, according to the traditional Marxist conception (which isn't a universal conception among Marxists nowadays), such a company would only be as profitable in the long run proportional to the amount of labour the businesswoman adds herself. This is why there hasn't been a completely automated shoe factory run by a single person that's profitable in the long run once forces of competition kick in.
The story is muddled a little if she acquires patents and copyrights, but it's not too far from reality, given that some countries have more lax attitudes towards IP and 'stealing designs'.
Simple online SaaS that required very little manual effort but provided a lot of value and saved lots of manual effort for those who used it.
Calling "wealth accumulation" (Frank's term) "the closest thing they have to fun" betrays his own bias.
It's quite possible that the work is just inherently fun. My work is, to me; sometimes I do it for free.
This reminds me of an article from the NYT probably 25 years ago when the author was astonished to see Mercedes' in the parking lot of Costco. "If you can afford a Mercedes why would you go to Costco?" Perhaps you prefer to shop there and don't give a shit about the old fashioned sumptuary habits.
In any case the attitude of the NYT was that people with any money would want to lord it over others. Back before the dot com boom that attitude had not migrated out here.
Both Costco and Sam's Club 25 years ago were truly "warehouse" stores. They had no heat. No air conditioning. They weren't brightly lit as they are today. Nowadays, they both have decent-to-above-average well-lit interiors that are designed to be essentially middle-class (in the case of Sam's) to upper middle-class (in the case of Costco) stores that are just "really big".
They were little more than distribution centers with printed price tags on items back in the mid-90s. A lot has changed, about both chains, since then.
Every person you listed there was an abuser who wanted power over women which were either beholden to them, or women which they held position above. It wasn't about having a sexual encounter for the mere sake of a sexual encounter.
That's one way to describe humanity, I guess.
Another is to mention that Bill Gates and the former Intel CEO met their wives at work. And millions of other couples.
Also I would be remiss in not mentioning that #metoo stalled after Matt Lauer's accusations, because he was thought to be a leftist. So what was #metoo really about, if political party mattered? hmmm ... that's the problem with cultural Marxism (aka the Red Terror), eventually you become the target.
So SJW, when is it your turn to be cancelled?
The article talks about young men playing video games excessively. A contributing factor is that online dating women are looking for the top 5%-20% or so of men now (combination of appearance and hypergamy), so the bottom 80% to 95% are not dateable online.
(A recent survey said women are only interested in the top 4.9% of men in dating apps, versus the previous estimates of 10%-20%. This is called unrestricted hypergamy and has horrible consequences for both women and society at large, as those 4.9% of men essentially have harems of short-term relationships because they can, and the other men can just play video games.)
I've never heard somebody say, "I want to accumulate the fruits of workers' labor", so I think the understanding of motivation is backwards - it's to create a company or solve a problem, and if workers are needed, you hire them. This is HN, so for most readers should be obvious.
The deeper psychology is that most men need a purpose in life, and a startup is very purposeful. Whether it succeeds or fails is kept by financial score, but it still serves the purpose of getting up daily, focusing on tasks, and trying to "make a dent in the universe." (Richard Cooper)
People who have many short term causual relationship have those because they want short term causual relationships - both men and women. They are not the same people as those who seek long term relationships. They have neither values nor interpersonal skills and habits for them.
The woman who supposedly enters the dating you talk about would had exactly same sex life and exactly same low quality relationship if she went for a gamer. Except maybe less fun as you don't get to have fun with someone who plays LoL.
I dunno, it's probably pretty different being in a relationship with somebody who would have an easy time finding somebody to cheat with vs. somebody who would have a hard time finding somebody to cheat with. Yeah, there are drawbacks to both, but they're not the same drawbacks.
After all, anyone can pay for prostitute if he really wants to. Plus, if he can't find anyone to cheat with, you probably don't want him for exactly same reasons.
Without meaningful work, I imagine the rational thing to do (not necessarily ethical) is to find a job that requires the least amount of effort with the highest pay. And if the government will pay me the same to sit at home, perhaps I’d even do that.
My own father had a lot of free time and chose to spend it doing just about anything other than raising his children. I can't say I took it well.
Don't know exactly why.
For one thing this very premise is plain wrong. Nobody's supposed to be meant to have anything.
>Why Do So Many Rich People Work So Much?
Could maybe be better restated as "Why do people who work more than average sometimes end up more financially prosperous than average?"
Rich people dont work so much... They just make so much money sitting around with other rich people they might as well call it work...
If you work in wall-mart your lunch is not paid. If you are the CEO of wall-mart you can expense a 2000 USD lunch and call it a buissness meeting.
If your job is number collection (realestate, banking, etc ) it is an addiction just like hoarding, the more you do it the more bigger number you want.
We should start shaming people for hoarding money just like we shame the poor for collecting toilet paper.
Working 12 hours as a CEO is not comparable to 12 hours shift in the factory.
I challenge you to find an appropriate replacement for each job.
Project manager: 8:30-9: Show up in office. Get coffe.
9-10:30: Check email.
10:45: Standup Meeting.
11-12: Lunch
12:30-2.00: Sprint Planning meeting
2.00-4.00: Help team and answer emails.
4:15: Go home.
----------------
Factory Worker: 6:55- Be ready and changed on post on the line:
7:00- Line take over and work:
9:00-9:10: Coffe Break.
9:10- 11:30 : Line work. Clean up some shit with no protection.
11:30-12:10 : Lunch Break.
12:10-1:30 : Line work.
1:30-1:40 : Coffe Break
1:40 - 3 : Line Work.
3:00 - 3:30 ( not payed ) : Change and go home
--- To clarify: There is no chairs on the line. So Line works means your standing....
Both jobs can be done by anyone,
But only one of the jobs requires you to have friends and kiss ass. Guess which ?
And do you have any idea how complicated being a product manager is? You have to deeply understand your entire team's footprint, blockers, other teams, industry trends.. It's hard work. Plus you manage timelines and have to de-risk every single day.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
A factory worker takes a day or week to train.
A product manager takes years to change.
A CEO is learning every single day, doing the PM job for the company + hiring + managing relationships + so much more. If they don't, their company is dead. They're steering a giant ship by wire.
Alot of the same can be said about many startup ceos.
Just take a look at all the crypto startups that made millions in 2017-2018
Sounds like a stupid question when you put it that way, doesn’t it?
There are multiple factors that contribute to success, but it's unlikely that maximizing just one of them in the absence of the others will lead to great results. Most successful people have gotten there through some combination of hard work, being born smart, having the means and opportunity to get an education, building a good network, etc.
This is like asking why Tom Brady keeps training.
Money are not meant to be spent, just like Lombardi Trophies are not meant to be looked at or held more than the 24hrs after winning it. Money , just like Lombardi Trophies or WSOP bracelets are a way to keep the score
These people, they pathologically refuse to eat the marshmallow, they live their whole life eating 1/1000000th of the marshmallow and postponing the optionality to eat the rest in the future.
Then they die.